As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!

Saturday, March 27, 2010

How Far Down Does the Rabbit Hole Go?

What does trouble me though, is the belief that "The Mossad Did 9/11!" is exactly the message the Mossad wants the truth movement to put forth. I mean, look at the Dancing Israelis. They could have videoed the airstrikes on the towers quietly from a tall building in Jersey City,or a boat on the river, or from inside a van quietly. Instead they sent a bunch of guys dressed as Arabs to Liberty Park to attract attention.

Same thing with Larry Silverstein. "Silverstein confessed to blowing up Building 7" is exactly what he wants the truth movement to say. That way truthers mark themselves as just a peculiar flavor of Jew-haters.

See, the Mossad intentionally sent the Dancing Jews to film the towers so that they would get blamed for 9-11, so that people could dismiss the 9-11 Truth Movement as Jew-haters. But doesn't that mean that the Mossad knew about the attacks in advance, and therefore they were in on the plot? And Larry Silverstein must have been coached by his Rabbi to say "pull it" on national TV.

How many blows to the head would it take before that started to make some sense?

lets take a look and compare 9/11 to a proven conspiracy, watergate. It was a conspiracy. The executive branch was involved; in fact, the plot was hatched by the President himself.

Now let's look at the differences. No one was killed (that we know of) as a result of Watergate. As far as I know, no one was even injured as a result of it. By all reasonable standards, it was a petty crime. Important enough to legitimately disqualify a President of the United States from staying in Office, sure. But still a petty crime. Right?

yet despite this, despite the fact that Richard Nixon would never be charged with anything like murder – let alone mass murder – for Watergate, our 'whistleblower' felt compelled to keep his identity a secret. For fear of… what?

Whatever it was, he waited until 2005 to reveal his true identity, over 30 years after the fact. He was that scared. Of revealing a white collar crime that really wouldn't have profited anyone anyway, even if they had gotten away with it.

What if Deep Throat hadn't come forward, or at least leaked what he knew to the Washington Post? Would we be talking about it today? Would someone else have had to come forward, because there's some law of nature that irresistibly mandates that Execute-Branch conspiracies must come to light?

Now, let's travel a few thousand light years to the other, extreme end of the conspiracy spectrum, and take a look at 9/11. Almost 3,000 innocent Americans were killed that day. On that basis alone it was the very antithesis of a petty crime. It was, in fact, one of the greatest crimes in history, whoever did it. And if it was Cheney and company, could they somehow not have known this? Could they really have been ignorant of the fact that, if it ever got out that they were responsible for those deaths, they would be the most vilified Americans in history? Not to mentioned probably put to death?

Watergate was sloppy. The break-in was detected, even before the true nature of the crime was revealed. It was carried out by a tiny group of men who more-or-less spontaneously thought, 'Gee, wouldn't it be neat to break into Democratic campaign headquarters?' There wasn't much to gain, not really. The nature and the rewards of the crime, as I said, were small change. And they were sloppy enough to leave evidence of their crime.

On the other hand, the stakes involved with 9/11 were huge. 9/11 would be that 'catastrophic and catalyzing event' that would allow them to realize their grand dream of a 'military transformation' of revolutionary proportions. It was their one shot. This was not a petty crime, and the rewards would not be petty either. And neither would the punishment if they were found out. But somehow (the whistleblower theory goes), despite their awareness of these supremely high stakes, somehow they wouldn't have taken the time to do everything they could to ensure that the truth of it never saw the light of day. Or, even despite their greatest efforts to keep it secret, somehow, someone with enough information to bring the whole house of cards tumbling down, someone whose documentation of the crime was absolutely comprehensive, absolutely authentic, and absolutely compelling, would be able to come forward after the fact and guarantee that justice prevailed.

Yes, let's. Watergate involved a handful of people and within barely two years not only was the plot revealed but a President is forced to resign because of he tried to cover it up (as another poster noted, you incorrectly claim he "hatched the plot"). The success in unraveling Watergate wasn't entirely dependent on Deep Throat, although he probably hastened it. In any case, any threat to his physical safety, assuming he was ever in any real danger, was probably over by 1974. He may have had many reasons for keeping quiet about his identity but he would have been lionized as hero, at least for many people, had he revealed himself earlier.

For this supposed "inside job" on 9/11 to have taken place, the explicit or implicit cooperation of thousands would have been required and more than 8 years later, not one has confessed. The same "mainstream media" that brought down Nixon is supposedly complicit in the coverup. You prove your own stupidity by even bringing up the comparison.

You could have sdaved yourself the trouble of penning down this lengthy posts of yours.

You fail to get something elementary into your non-existent brain:

Watergate is a proven conspiracy because factual evidence leading to the conclusion exists.

Watergate is therefore a conspiracy theorie in the scientific sense of the word.

There is not one iota of evidence in favor of your 9/11 theories.

All proponents of such theories have to offer in favor of their theories is supposed "anomalies" and a trainload of logical fallacies. These 9/11 theories are therefore Conspiracy theories in the popular sense of the word.

And so we are dipshits not excepting your nonsense in the light of the total absence of any evidence?

What makes blindly believing into such theories makes you? I can think of a thing or two.

OK, let me get this straight. The fact that the 9/11 plot would have been exponentially much more hideous, complex, difficult to pull off, and difficult to cover-up than Watergate is actually viewed by you as proof FOR a 9/11 conspiracy?

Our spastic friend also misses another point which is glaringly obvious to the non-retarded community.

All the facts about Watergate and the Presidential cover-up were established by a combination of legislative and judicial investigation - not to mention the WaPos' journalists - just over two years after the break-in.

Eight years plus, the belief that 9/11 was done by anyone other than al-Qaeda is confined to a small bunch of morons and fuckups.

Where is the truther equivalent of 'Deep Throat'? Or, for that matter, the equivalent of John Dean? Where are all those officials who - either through remorse or a sense of self-preservation - are prepared to tell the world what really happened to the WTC towers and the Pentagon?

Nowhere. That means either of these propositions are true:

(1) That every official in US government service from the bottom upwards is both inhumanly cold-blooded and utterly discreet, OR

anonymous says "9/11 would be that 'catastrophic & catalyzing event' that would allow them to realise blah blah blah"

Stop recycling bullshit internet tropes, loser. "Cheney & company" were not responsible for one of the most awful days in American history. Dick Cheney has taken more memorable dumps than your most profound speculations.

But doesn't that mean that the Mossad knew about the attacks in advance, and therefore they were in on the plot?

Not necessarily. Knowing about something - in vague terms - does not necessarily mean being "in on the plot". For instance, they (the Mossad) may have known that something would likely occur in a certain week or month.

Good point, BE. That the Mossad knew 9/11 was coming does not mean they were involved. Pat's inference is typical SLC illogic.

Also, CD, you are quick to cite Watergate as a "See? Governments can't keep secrets!" example. Gee, you don't suppose the fact that the burglars were caught red handed might have something to do with it?

Not necessarily. Knowing about something - in vague terms - does not necessarily mean being "in on the plot". For instance, they (the Mossad) may have known that something would likely occur in a certain week or month.

This is the first intelligent thing you've ever written, Boris.

Also, on the topic of this post, is anyone else reminded of the poisoned wine scene from "The Princess Bride"?

"Also, CD, you are quick to cite Watergate as a "See? Governments can't keep secrets!" example. Gee, you don't suppose the fact that the burglars were caught red handed might have something to do with it?"

That's like a joke, right?

'Cause if it isn't, the abysmal depths of historical ignorance revealed there would rival the Grand Canyon.